Comments on: Dijkgraaf: “emails not directly related to IPCC”

By: Pasteur01

Pasteur01 — Fri, 14 May 2010 19:55:41 +0000

Got it. It’s the contribution to sea level rise.

By: Pasteur01

Pasteur01 — Fri, 14 May 2010 19:48:24 +0000

Pachauri’s presentation to the Interacademy Council is available here.

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/

On page 11 he provides a graph entitled “Cumulative balance of glacier mass.” Hasn’t he reversed the sign of the y-axis?

By: justbeau

justbeau — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:53:49 +0000

Dr. Holdren’s slides seem worthy of careful scrutiny in terms of shedding light on the latest thinking of and marketing by the Team.

By: Charles DrPH

Charles DrPH — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 08:04:20 +0000

I was hoping to see Lord Oxburgh speak at the Chicago Summit of the NAE Grand Challenges yesterday, but alas, the Icelandic volcano delayed his flight! Pity, I had been keeping all of your commentary in my back pocket.

These are the presentation slides from the Summit talk by Dr. John Holdren, chief science advisor to Pres. Obama. These are very pertinent to our discussions and provide a very clear window into the thinking at the very top, please review and discuss;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/jph-chicago-04212010.pdf

By: Brooks Hurd

Brooks Hurd — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:27:10 +0000

The problem, Dominic, is that this would require investigative journalism. Instead of reading the brief press release and re-gurgitating it almost verbatim, journalists would need to dig into the background and present the facts rather than the self serving opinions in a press release. Sadly, there are few journalists who engage in anything that could be called “investigative journalism” by the average person.

The other sad part of the story is that most journalists took their last science and math courses in high school. They consequently lack the educational background to understand the esoteric issues which are discussed in this blog.

By: Barclay E MacDonald

Barclay E MacDonald — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:43:27 +0000

Thanks David Holland and Paul M for the examples. There is so much data. It’s always helpful to be specifically reminded.

Dominic M. I too am amazed at how inept the MSM has been. However, a few are starting to do the work and are gaining a decent grasp of this very complex matter. There are some noteable holdouts identified from time to time on this blog. But I disagree with at least one part of your solution. No press releases from Steve M.! I propose that this blog has done rather well for itself and should persist.

Dr. Dijkgraaf are you reading this? Please feel free to defend yourself. As you can see, your comment, “Those emails are not directly related to the work of the IPCC.” is really inexplicable for most of us.

By: Lea

Lea — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:39:06 +0000

Come on,Dijkgraaf has said no such thing,. He said the hacked emails “are not directly related to the work of the IPCC” While this is untrue,in no way is this equivalent to your contention “He has denied the East Anglia people contributed to the IPCC reports.”

By: justbeau

justbeau — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:06:29 +0000

It is a wonderful blessing Dr. Dijkgraaf has seen fit to torpedo his own credibility by saying something patently false. He has denied the East Anglia people contributed to the IPCC reports. This false statement makes him a laughingstock.

Dijkgraaf may be naive. Or, he may be misinformed. While it would be sad if he is lying, this possibility cannot be ignored. Whatever the reason among these three possibilities, none is praise-worthy. Dijkgraaf has his done great harm to his personal credibility.

I am further encouraged by leadership from the Chinese academy of sciences. China relies on a lot of coal. I doubt China will accept the the Love Guru’s views. China will probably point out there should be more acknowledgement of uncertainties.

By: Gerald Machnee

Gerald Machnee — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:51:03 +0000

**Specifically, we have been asked to address the following:
1. Data quality assurance and data quality control at the IPCC
2. Guidelines for the types of literature appropriate for inclusion in IPCC assessments, with
special attention to the use of non peer reviewed literature
3. Procedures for expert and governmental review of IPCC material
4. Handling of the full range of scientific views
5. Procedures for correcting errors identified after approval, adoption and acceptance of a
report.**
In #2 they note non peer-reviewed literature. So what will that cover?

**We have also been asked to analyze the overall IPCC process, including the management,
administration, and transparency of the IPCC and the way in which it handles possible errors and
communicates them to policymakers and the public.**

How will communication handling be recommended?

**And now, I look forward to answering your questions.**

And this is the best one. Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest letting them know what they should cover and read. This would avoid the limited material used by the last two reports. They will not be able to say they were unaware of any material, but they could repeat what they have already said – not related.

By: Patrik

Patrik — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 20:39:44 +0000

OT: Has everybody read this article from Oppo et al:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009PA001871.shtml

They have found quite a strong link between changes in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool and in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, their results are strongly in favour for real non-hockey-stick:ish RWM and MWP.

I don’t understand all the scientific lingo, but this quote is quite clear:
“However, our data are unique in that they demonstrate in detail that many of the major climatic shifts noted historically in Europe had a significant hydrologic expression in the IPWP.”
I.e. they find that for example the MWP wasn’t regional in Europe, but likely more of a global phenomena!